`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Patti Jones, Karin Murry, Kathy Kerssen,
`Carrie Martinson, Jacki Stene, and
`Deb Koziolek,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` vs
`
`The Mayo Clinic; a Minnesota non-profit
`corporation, and the Mayo Foundation, a
`Minnesota non-profit corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Court File No. 22-cv-1478 JRT/BRT
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Patti Jones (“Plaintiff Jones”), Karin Murry (“Plaintiff Murry”), Kathy
`
`Kerssen (“Plaintiff Kerssen”), Carrie Martinson (“Plaintiff Martinson”), Jacki Stene
`
`(“Plaintiff Stene”), and Deb Koziolek (“Plaintiff Koziolek”) (all Plaintiffs collectively
`
`“Plaintiffs”) make the following allegations for their Complaint against Defendant The
`
`Mayo Clinic (“Defendant Mayo”) and Defendant the Mayo Foundation (“Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation”).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In October, 2021, Defendant Mayo mandated that all its employees,
`
`including employees of its related corporation Defendant Mayo Foundation, receive the
`
`Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of continuing their employment (“Vaccine
`
`Mandate”). Many of Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s employees,
`
`including Plaintiffs, objected to receiving these vaccinations because of their sincerely-
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs filed requests for a religious exemption with Defendant
`
`Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation to be exempt from taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccination. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation denied the requested
`
`religious exemptions. In addition, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation
`
`failed to undertake an individual interactive process with any of the Plaintiffs as required
`
`for evaluating religious exemption requests. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation terminated Plaintiffs solely based on Plaintiffs refusal to take the Covid-19
`
`vaccine. However, only a couple of months after terminating Plaintiffs, Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation reversed part of their Vaccine Mandate regarding
`
`testing, demonstrating that the terminations of Plaintiffs were either unnecessary or a
`
`pretext.
`
`2.
`
`Based on Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s
`
`implementation of the Vaccine Mandate and their refusal to grant Plaintiffs their requests
`
`for religious exemptions, Plaintiffs bring claims under Title VII for religious
`
`discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) based on Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s Vaccine Mandate, related state claims under
`
`the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination and disability
`
`discrimination and breach of contract.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA, including the filing of a Charge with the EEOC,
`
`and the receipt of a right-to-sue letter from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`(“EEOC”) following closure of the EEOC file, all in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-
`
`5(f)(1).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it raises
`
`claims pursuant to federal statute, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This Court further has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo as it is a non-
`
`profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo Foundation as it
`
`is a non-profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Mayo is subject to the provisions of Title VII and the ADA
`
`because Defendant Mayo employs more than fifteen employees in each of twenty or
`
`more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42 U.S.C. §2000e
`
`(b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation is subject to the provisions of Title VII and
`
`the ADA because Defendant Mayo Foundation employs more than fifteen employees in
`
`each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42
`
`U.S.C. §2000e (b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
`
`because the actions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Minnesota, and
`
`Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation conduct business in the State of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Patti Jones is a Wisconsin resident who worked for Defendant
`
`Mayo most recently in the post hospital partnership program. She worked 100%
`
`remotely for most of the last two years of her employment.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Karin Murry is a Rochester, Minnesota resident who is 55 years
`
`old and worked for the Defendant Mayo Foundation as a respiratory therapist for over 30
`
`years. On information and belief, Plaintiff Murry is one of the more highly paid
`
`employees at her position.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Kathy Kerssen is a Rochester, Minnesota resident who most
`
`recently worked as a certified optician for Defendant Mayo for nearly 20 years. Plaintiff
`
`Kerssen is 53 years old and is one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Carrie Martinson is a Gilbert, Arizona resident who worked for
`
`Defendant Mayo as a nurse practitioner for nearly 20 years when she resided in
`
`Minnesota. She made $62.75 per hour, which made her one of the more highly paid
`
`employees for her position.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Jacki Stene is an Albert Lea, Minnesota resident who is 62 years
`
`old and worked for Defendant Mayo as an senior IT access management specialist.
`
`Plaintiff Stene worked for Defendant Mayo for approximately 35 years and on
`
`information and belief was one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Deb Koziolek is a Minnesota resident who is 60 years old and
`
`worked for Defendant Mayo as an LPN for 18 years. On information and belief, Plaintiff
`
`Koziolek was one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`16. Defendant Mayo is a Minnesota non-profit corporation headquartered in
`
`Minnesota which operates medical facilities in Minnesota.
`
`17. Defendant Mayo Foundation is a Minnesota non-profit corporation
`
`headquartered in Minnesota which operates medical facilities in Minnesota.
`
`FACTS
`
`18. During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Plaintiffs were asked to work their
`
`own and frequently additional shifts in order to cover the increase in treatment and care
`
`for patients during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. At that time, Plaintiffs, while
`
`unvaccinated, continued to provide patient care or continue working during the pandemic
`
`while employed by Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation.
`
`19. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation recognized the
`
`important work that all of its employees were doing—the unvaccinated and the
`
`vaccinated—and on September 28, 2021 the President and CEO of Defendant Mayo
`
`(Gianrico Farrugia, M.D.), along with the Chief administrative Officer (Jeff Bolton)
`
`wrote to Defendant Mayo’s employees:
`
`“On behalf of the leaders of Mayo Clinic’s sites and shields, thank you for
`the compassionate care you provide to our patients, your excellent service
`to Mayo Clinic, and the supportive and collaborative environment you
`create for all of our colleagues. We truly appreciate you and your efforts
`to live our values every day.”
`
`20. However, just two weeks later, Defendant Mayo implemented its Vaccine
`
`Mandate for Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation. The Vaccine Mandate
`
`stated that “all Mayo Clinic staff members” must get vaccinated with one of the Covid-19
`
`vaccines or else the employees would be considered “noncompliant,” later “placed on
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`unpaid leave,” and eventually “terminated.” The Vaccine Mandate applied to “all staff,
`
`including remote workers,” of which Defendant Mayo had many. Recognition of the
`
`important work performed by the unvaccinated employees disappeared only two weeks
`
`after being celebrated.
`
`21.
`
`The Vaccine Mandate was announced on October 13, 2021. Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s policy required all staff to become vaccinated
`
`against Covid-19, and that if they were not already vaccinated or only partially
`
`vaccinated, they would have to become vaccinated or be approved for a medical or
`
`religious exemption by December 3, 2021, or be terminated.
`
`22. On October 25, 2021, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation
`
`sent a communication outlining the steps to comply with the Covid-19 vaccination
`
`policy. Beginning on December 3, 2021, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation issued Final Written Warnings to noncompliant staff with instructions on
`
`complying by January 3, 2022, or be terminated.
`
`23. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation announced that there
`
`were both medical and religious exemptions from the Vaccine Mandate, and did allow for
`
`employees to apply for “medical and religious exemptions” to the Vaccine Mandate, and
`
`even provided “forms” for such applications.
`
`24. However, what Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation gave
`
`with one hand, they took away with the other by proclaiming that “it is anticipated that a
`
`small number of staff will have a qualifying religious exemption.” (emphasis added)
`
`Defendants further wrote: “applications for a religious exemption will be denied if the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`panel determines the applicant does not demonstrate a sincerely held religious belief,
`
`(emphasis added). Further, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation declared:
`
`“[o]nly a small number of staff are expected to qualify for a religious exemption.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`25. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation thus put themselves in
`
`the position of deciding the sincerity of the religious belief of the Plaintiffs and, whether
`
`a belief was “religious” or not.
`
`26. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation also expressed
`
`limitations to the “medical exemption” to the Vaccine Mandate by stating: “The only
`
`absolute medical contraindications to vaccination for COVID-19 are severe or
`
`immediate reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine, known allergy to a vaccine component,
`
`or a preexisting and clinically diagnosed fear of needles.” Other medical conditions
`
`were preemptively discounted or disregarded.
`
`27.
`
`The pre-determined limitations on their religious and medical exemption
`
`policies were supposed to be kept in the dark, as Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation wrote to the high-ranking personnel who were to implement the policies:
`
`“This message is intended for regional supervisors, managers and other leaders, so
`
`please do not share broadly.” (emphasis added).
`
`28. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Jones requested
`
`a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Jones requested
`
`Defendant Mayo provide her with further information regarding the religious exemption
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`denial and was told: “We are not able to provide individual feedback regarding your
`
`denial reasons.” Plaintiff Jones requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial
`
`denial. Defendant Mayo denied the request for reconsideration.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Jones is a Christian and believes her body is a Temple of the Holy
`
`Spirit and that she must not defile her body with unwanted intrusions. Taking the vaccine
`
`would defile her body that God has given her.
`
`30.
`
` For almost all of her last two years of employment with Defendant Mayo,
`
`Plaintiff Jones worked 100% remotely and therefore did not have contact with patients or
`
`other employees and therefore posed no danger to Defendant Mayo’s employees or
`
`patients.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Jones received positive job performance reviews.
`
`32. Because of her job with Defendant Mayo, Plaintiff Jones was aware of a
`
`number of patients suffering illnesses shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Murry requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation denied. Plaintiff Murry requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo Foundation denied the request for
`
`reconsideration.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Murry also sought information as to the basis for the rejection of
`
`her religious exemption but Defendant Mayo Foundation provided no reasoning or
`
`explanation.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Murry is a Christian and believes that her body is a Temple and
`
`she has the right, through prayer, to determine what to put into her body. She has
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`determined she cannot, consistent with her conscience and religious beliefs, take the
`
`vaccine.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Murry was at the high end of the pay scale for her job and had
`
`worked for Defendant Mayo for over 30 years.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has received positive job performance reviews including
`
`that “Karin is an amazing team member. She is a joy to work with and always offers help
`
`to coworkers.”
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has observed that the Vaccine Mandate and religious
`
`exemption process were used to prematurely end the employment of older workers and
`
`higher paid workers.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has observed numerous healthy individuals suffering
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the vaccine.
`
`40. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Kerssen
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Kerssen
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration. Plaintiff Kerssen received many positive employment
`
`reviews for her job performance.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen has had Covid-19 and recovered which means she has
`
`natural immunity.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen has observed numerous healthy individuals suffering
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the vaccine.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen is a Christian, and has determined that she cannot,
`
`consistent with her religion and conscience, take the COVID-19 vaccine. She is a
`
`believer in Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, believes the tenants of the Holy Scripture that
`
`whatever she does in life will be called into account, including what she does to her body,
`
`made in the image of God, and to do otherwise is a sin against God. She also objects to
`
`taking the Covid-19 vaccine on the basis that it was produced with, or tested with cells
`
`from aborted human babies. This violates her religious belief in the Commandment that
`
`Thou Shall Not Kill.
`
`44. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Martinson
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Martinson
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson is a Christian and has determined she cannot, consistent
`
`with her conscience, take the COVID-19 vaccine. She is a believer in Jesus Christ, Lord
`
`and Savior, believes the tenants of the Holy Scripture that whatever she does in life will
`
`be called into account, including what she does to her body, made in the image of God,
`
`and to do otherwise is a sin against God. She also believes that abortion is murder and a
`
`sin, and since the vaccines were produced with, or tested with, cells from aborted human
`
`babies, it would be sinful to take the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson also requested a medical exemption because she had
`
`COVID-19, recovered, and has antibody immunity confirmed by test in December 2021.
`
`Martinson also has had a number of health issues causing her to miss periods of work.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson also filed a request for a medical exemption with
`
`Defendant Mayo because health providers advised Plaintiff Martinson to delay Covid-19
`
`vaccination due to severe inflammatory disorders. Defendant Mayo also denied Plaintiff
`
`Martinson’s request for a medical exemption.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson has received numerous positive job reviews including
`
`that she “is a great resource for everyone! She is knowledgeable of her job and is always
`
`willing to help out…”
`
`49. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Stene requested
`
`a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Stene requested
`
`reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied the request
`
`for reconsideration.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Stene has been tested for anti-bodies which demonstrated that she
`
`has anti bodies present to provide immunity to Covid-19.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff Stene received numerous positive job performance reviews.
`
`Plaintiff Stene worked 100% remotely with Defendant Mayo after March
`
`2020. As such, she was able to perform her duties and pose no threat whatsoever to
`
`Defendant Mayo’s employees or patients.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`53. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Koziolek
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Koziolek
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek is a Christian and believes that during prayer God
`
`revealed it would be wrong for her to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek received numerous positive job performance reviews.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek, who is 60 years old, is aware of younger workers whose
`
`religious exemptions were granted. Plaintiff Koziolek was at the higher end of the pay
`
`scale. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mayo denied the religious exemptions of
`
`older, higher compensated workers, and then terminated them.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek is aware of several people who suffered injuries or
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine, and is aware of one person who
`
`died shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`58. After Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation told Plaintiffs that
`
`Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation had denied their requests for religious
`
`exemptions and requests for reconsideration, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation also instructed the Plaintiffs: “Do not distribute, forward, or copy the content
`
`of this notification.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`59. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Jones’ employment on January 3,
`
`2022. Plaintiff Jones filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Jones a Right to Sue letter dated March 3, 2022.
`
`60. Defendant Mayo Foundation terminated Plaintiff Murry’s employment on
`
`January 3, 2022. Plaintiff Murry filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and the
`
`EEOC issued Plaintiff Murry a Right to Sue letter dated March 3, 2022
`
`61. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Kerssen on January 3, 2022. Plaintiff
`
`Kerssen filed a discrimination charge against Defendant Mayo, and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen a Right to Sue letter March 7, 2022.
`
`62. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Martinson on January 3, 2022.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson filed a charge for discrimination with the EEOC and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Martinson a Right to Sue letter dated March 7, 2022.
`
`63. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Stene on January 3, 2022. Plaintiff
`
`Stene filed with the EEOC a charge of discrimination against Defendant Mayo. The
`
`EEOC issued Plaintiff Stene a Right to Sue letter dated March 7, 2022.
`
`64. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Koziolek on January 3, 2022.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC and on March 8, 2022
`
`the EEOC issued Plaintiff Koziolek a Right to Sue letter.
`
`65. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation created an ad hoc panel
`
`to review exemption requests for taking the Covid-19 vaccine. As noted above, each of
`
`the Plaintiffs submitted requests for an exemption, but Defendant Mayo or Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation denied nearly every request for religious exemption, with the exception
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`that some were granted, but conditioned upon submission to invasive, supervised weekly
`
`testing.
`
`66. As a result of Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s policy
`
`on restricting religious and medical exemptions, very few people qualified for those
`
`exemptions, resulting in mass terminations for those, including each of the Plaintiffs, who
`
`all refused to be injected with the Covid-19 vaccine and whom Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation terminated as a result.
`
`67.
`
`In issuing the denials for requests for a religious exemption from taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation sent the such
`
`employees, including Plaintiffs, the same boilerplate language:
`
`”Thank you for submitting your request for religious exemption. The
`information you provided was carefully considered. While this may not be
`the news you were hoping to receive, your religious accommodation has
`not been approved. Based on the information provided, your request did
`not meet the criteria for a religious exemption accommodation.”
`
`68. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation conducted no case-by-
`
`case analysis or individualized interactive process to discuss each of the Plaintiff’s
`
`religious exemption requests or possible accommodation of their religious objections. In
`
`response to employee requests for explanation or information regarding Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s processes for evaluating religious exemptions
`
`requests from employees seeking a religious exemptions to taking the Covid-19 vaccine,
`
`Defendant Mayo wrote: “HR is not able to share what criteria was used to
`
`review/approve the exemption. A small team of employees reviewed each request and
`
`based on what was provided to them from each individual employee is what was used in
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`the approval/denial decision.” Rather than engage in a legitimate interactive process,
`
`respect the sincerity of its employees’, including Plaintiffs’, religious beliefs, or attempt
`
`any reasonable accommodation, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation sent
`
`its employees more boilerplate language to justify its pre-determined result:
`
`“Generally, denials occur because the requestor has not clearly stated their
`sincerely held belief, demonstrated it is a sincerely and consistently held
`belief, and/or clearly defined the conflict between their religious belief and
`receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.”
`
`69. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation actually specifically
`
`disavowed an individual interactive process by writing: “Specific feedback on individual
`
`requests will not be provided, it is not possible to provide individual feedback.”
`
`70.
`
`Each of the Plaintiffs sought further clarification on Defendant Mayo’s and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation’s criteria for determining whether a religious belief
`
`constituted a “sincerely held religious belief,” and the basis for Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation determining that each of the Plaintiffs did not have a
`
`“sincerely held religious belief.” However, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation refused to respond to these individual requests for clarification and rather
`
`simply sent each of the Plaintiffs the identical generalized language in Defendant Mayo’s
`
`letters.
`
`71.
`
`In their form denial letters, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation announced that they would accept appeals of their uniform denial decisions.
`
`“If you would like to submit additional clarifying information, you may submit a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`reconsideration request here.” Each of the Plaintiffs took advantage of that process and
`
`submitted additional information to Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation.
`
`72.
`
`Following each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for reconsideration of their
`
`requests for a religious exemption to taking the Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation again issued identical denial letters to each of the Plaintiffs
`
`and nearly every employee who appealed a denial of a request for a religious exemption
`
`to taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Defendants’ transmittal email messages stated:
`
`“Unfortunately, the additional information you provided did not change the outcome as it
`
`did not meet the criteria for a religious accommodation.” Again, Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation engaged in no interactive process to evaluate the requests
`
`for religious exemptions.
`
`73. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation did not provide
`
`information to its employees, including each of the Plaintiffs, about how Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation determined whether the religious beliefs of those
`
`employees who submitted requests for a religious exemption to taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccine were sincerely held or whether those religious beliefs would be accommodated.
`
`74. Both Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s original denial
`
`of each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for a religious exemption and Defendant Mayo’s and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation’s denial of each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for
`
`reconsideration of the denial of their requests for a religious exemption to taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine contained this warning at the bottom: “Do not disseminate, distribute,
`
`forward, or copy the content of this notification.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`75. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation further instructed its
`
`employees to “endorse the vaccine or say nothing.”
`
`76.
`
`Each of the Plaintiffs submitted good-faith statements of their sincerely-
`
`held religious beliefs, with explanations of how their faith constrained them from
`
`accepting the Covid-19 vaccination. Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation’s ad hoc panel nevertheless denied each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for a
`
`religious exemption and Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation made no
`
`effort to accommodate their requests for a religious exemption. Further, Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation never considered allowing Plaintiffs to be
`
`accommodated by simply doing their job in the way they had been doing it for over one
`
`and one-half years prior to the Vaccine Mandate.
`
`77. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation, in issuing the Vaccine
`
`Mandate, instructed that all of their employees must be “fully vaccinated,” despite the
`
`fact that the phrase “fully vaccinated” has changed from one shot, to two shots, then three
`
`shots, then four shots, and even a discussion of a fifth shot or annual shots.
`
`78. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation mandated its employees,
`
`including Plaintiffs, take the Covid-19 vaccine despite accumulating evidence that the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine does not provide protection as long lasting as had been previously
`
`represented, does not prevent infection or transmission, but only allegedly reduces the
`
`severity of Covid-19 if a person contracts Covid-19.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`79. While many claimed that the Covid-19 pandemic was a pandemic of the
`
`unvaccinated, now the overwhelming majority of people with Covid-19 were vaccinated
`
`to one extent or another.
`
`80.
`
`The numbers of patients hospitalized because of Covid-19 positive status
`
`has also been overstated because many were hospitalized for other causes, not because of
`
`Covid-19.
`
`81.
`
`Thus, the extent of Covid-19 infections, the severity of the Covid-19
`
`infection, the efficacy of the vaccines, and the time-length of vaccine protection may all
`
`have been overstated, contributing to an over exuberance in mandating vaccines, and
`
`punishing the unvaccinated, as Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation have
`
`done as set forth above.
`
`82.
`
`Early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, and before any vaccines were
`
`available, Defendant Mayo provided free testing to determine “how many Mayo Clinic
`
`staff have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2.”
`
`83. Rather than disclosing the results of its determination on the numbers of
`
`Defendant Mayo “staff” that “have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2,” or
`
`disclosing studies on the “duration of immunity after Covid-19,” (which some studies
`
`have asserted are many times more effective than vaccine immunity), Defendant Mayo
`
`has not made public this information and instead simply issued its Vaccine Mandate.
`
`84. On March 8, 2022, Defendant Mayo announced it would suspend the
`
`testing program portion of its Vaccine Mandate. As a result, Defendant Mayo’s
`
`remaining unvaccinated employees are now treated similarly to vaccinated employees.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 19 of 28
`
`
`
`85. After terminating each of the Plaintiffs, Defendant Mayo and Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation suspended weekly testing effective March 14, 2022. This means that
`
`those employees (like Plaintiffs) who would have had their religious exemptions granted,
`
`contingent on weekly testing, and were terminated between January 2022 and March 8,
`
`2022, would no longer be forced to test weekly, and would no longer be terminated for
`
`objecting to testing, which Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation has now
`
`determined is unnecessary.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Religious Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under Title VII of the Civil
`Rights Act of 1964
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully set-forth
`
`herein.
`
`87. Defendant Mayo is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e(b).
`
`88. Defendant Mayo Foundation is an “employer” within the meaning of 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiffs are “employees” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs which prevented them from
`
`receiving the vaccine. Plaintiffs’ beliefs arise because of their sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs.
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiffs informed Defendant Mayo and/or Defendant Mayo Foundation of
`
`the conflict between their religious beliefs and the Vaccine Mandate.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 20 of 28
`
`
`
`92.
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of
`
`religion. Id. § 2000e-2. The Act further requires covered employers to provide reasonable
`
`accommodation to their employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Id. § 2000e(j).
`
`93.
`
`The law prohibits Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation from
`
`scrutinizing what they believe to be the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, or
`
`whether Plaintiffs’ exercise of their beliefs is logical or as consistent as Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation believe the exercise of those religious beliefs should be.
`
`94. Guidance issued by the Equ